Opening the door for child abuse- Gay Marriage

Gosh, sorry to be so confusing. So I guess I will spell it out as best I can for you. As a Christian, I believe it is a sin to have sex outside the boundaries of marriage. While I may believe the choice someone makes to live together is wrong, that in no way precludes me from being happy for them and the love they share or congratulating them for a lifetime of commitment to each other.

Just because I am a Christian and hold to certain beliefs does not mean I dislike, or hope to see fail, those who make choices other than those I believe in or would make.

Hope that clarifies my position.


And thanks Frank, I thought it was a pretty good save also.

Cycloptichorn

Things to know


Condom testing reveals best brands

Planned Parenthood condom performs worst

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 Posted: 6:25 PM EST (2325 GMT)



Reuters) -- The consumers group best known for rating cars and washing machines has turned its testing prowess to condoms to find out which ones measure up best and how other birth control methods compare.The nonprofit Consumers Union says in a new guide to contraception that the seven top types of condom they studied did not burst despite vigorous testing, and all models met international standards.But results showed that the top brand, able to take the most punishment, was the Durex Extra Sensitive Lubricated Latex, according to the report.Other top-performers include the Durex Performax Lubricated, Lifestyles Classic Collection Ultra Sensitive Lubricated and TheyFit Lubricated.A melon-colored model distributed by Planned Parenthood performed the worst, bursting during a test in which the latex condoms were filled with air.The group says its review of contraceptives was not politically motivated, although there is an intense debate among health professionals and advocacy groups about the focus on abstinence-only education by the Bush administration."We plan our testing programs quite a while in advance. This is purely accidental," said senior editor Nancy Metcalf.Consumers Union uses standardized tests to rate the products it examines, which for latex condoms involves filling them with air. There is no accepted method to test silicon or non-latex condoms."You end up with a balloon 3 feet tall and a foot wide. They can really stretch an amazing amount," Metcalf said in a telephone interview.The New York-based organization, which publishes the Consumer Reports magazine, also tested 16 other contraceptive choices."Condoms remain the only family planning and pregnancy prevention method that can help prevent sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, which causes AIDS," the group, which has issued similar reports on condoms periodically since 1979, said in a statement."Condoms have improved since the mid-nineties because industry manufacturing standards have become more universally used and more effective," added Edward Kippel, who led the condom test project.Intrauterine devices or IUDs have also become safer than in previous years, as have birth control pills, including so-called emergency contraception, the group said.While abstinence has a 0 percent failure rate, doing nothing to prevent pregnancy has an 85 percent failure rate, the group found.A U.S. government report published last month shows 98 percent of all U.S. women who have had sex have used birth control

Anybody else notice that Mysticwarrior seems to have made the accusation and bolted?
Personally, I think that the whole "if gay people get married, then what's next: beastiality union?" is a crock. It's just a justification for the republican right to fall back on when their "God says it's bad" excuse falls short, as it should. There is a world of difference between two consenting adults and an adult and a child, and there's even more of a gap between that adult and an animal, and, unless I'm more out of touch than I thought, there's no sane judge who would allow the last two to happen.

I believe polygamy will be next on the docket...

Well, might well be, since the USA already has some hoitoric experiences re this subject and is such ahead of othern western countries ...

Good point WH.

And what's wrong with Polygamy anyways? Different strokes, different folks, yaknow.

Cycloptichorn

oh imagine just how wonderful the world would have been throughout the ages if only there'd been no gay folks. no unmarrieds having sex.

there would have been no wars, no tyrants, no hunger or starvation. there would have been no disease, no malformed babies, or mental retardation.

greed, avirice, envy, hate would never have arisen...

please. the whole "morality" of sex crusade is a complete non-issue in the scheme of things.

the "responsibility of sex" is more like where i believe the focus should be.

and before i get hopped on about child abuse; that, like rape, is not about sex. it is about control and terror.

Taliesin just reminded me that Falwell made this claim a while back about gay marriages leading to beastiality.

Warrior must be a Falwell fan.

(And, apparently couldn't take the heat here)

the problem with polygamy is that when placed together in a living situation, womens menstrual cycles eventually come together...so ...multiply your wife on the rag with three or four more wives....and a few daughters....too horrible to comprehend.....

I've always wanted to have sex with a swan.....

I agree with most of what you say; however you should not be giving a free pass to the many bigotted Democrats who show the same contempt for homosexuals.

Whenever I see folks like this (and boy, ain't it depressing how often they pop up) I head straight into demands for evidence and documentation. At minimum, they'll realize they can't get away with such incredible sloppy thinking and arguing, or they'll suffer some real humiliation. At best, they'll get themselves educated to a rather higher standard.

Coastal rat-all clarified thank you.

Bi Polar Bear-Swan,hey if your gona do it may as well be a classy animal.

Yeah, sure.

And I suppose you think by wording it this way...we'll suppose you actually haven't done it yet.

We didn't just fall off the back of a turnip truck, Bear!

I guess this trecherous ride down the slippery slope began when it became tolerable for the "pure race" to marry Jews, Blacks, Asians and other non-whites.
Once we let that slide, we needed only slip an inch before banging and marrying a horse became the norm.
...if only our crystal balls were tuned in at the time, we could have prevented all of this.

I find all of this pretty amusing....especially the "drive by" post by the author of this thread.

Candidone1: Yeah, though I do wish he had stuck around, since it's always nice to either a) change a person's mind for the better, or b) at least shatter their faulty foundation for this erroneous belief.

MYSTIC WARRIOR: WHERE ARE YOU????

S/he's a bolter.

Another warrior sails into the mystic

and a waste of a sorta cool screen name too.

Justices Refuse to Consider Law Banning Gay Adoption

By LINDA GREENHOUSE

Published: January 11, 2005

ASHINGTON, Jan. 10 - The Supreme Court refused on Monday to hear a challenge to a Florida law that prohibits gay men and lesbians from adopting children.

Florida's is the only such statute in the country, and the prohibition is the only categorical adoption ban on the state's books. Florida evaluates adoption applications from all other would-be adoptive parents, including those who have failed at previous adoptions and those with a history of drug abuse or domestic violence, on a case-by-case basis.
Three gay men and the children they have raised in long-term foster care challenged the statute in a lawsuit filed four years before the Supreme Court, in Lawrence v. Texas, invalidated that state's criminal sodomy law in a landmark gay-rights ruling.

The Florida plaintiffs had lost their case in Federal District Court in Key West and had already filed their briefs with the federal appeals court in Atlanta when the Lawrence decision was issued in June 2003. Their lawyers then filed supplemental briefs arguing that the Texas decision meant that Florida's law should also fall, as an expression of anti-gay sentiment that the Supreme Court had ruled could not be a basis for public policy.

But a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit disagreed, ruling last January that the Lawrence decision did not refute "the accumulated wisdom of several millennia of human experience" that the "optimal family structure" in which to raise children was one with a mother and father married to each other.

The appeals court then deadlocked 6 to 6 on whether the full court should rehear the case. The rehearing request failed because a rehearing requires a majority vote. One of the judges voting against rehearing the case was William H. Pryor Jr., who was named to the appeals court as a temporary recess appointment by President Bush during an 11-day Congressional recess last February. Had Judge Pryor not participated, the appeals court would have reconsidered the case.

The validity of the Pryor appointment - whether the president's constitutional authority to make appointments "during the recess of the Senate" to positions ordinarily requiring Senate confirmation applies to such short recesses - is the subject of a separate case that has been appealed to the Supreme Court.

Although Florida's adoption law had contained a preference for married couples, the state repealed that provision in 2003. One-quarter of the adoptions in the state are by single people.

The state Legislature voted to prohibit adoptions by gays in 1977, in the midst of a campaign led by the entertainer Anita Bryant to repeal a gay-rights ordinance adopted by Dade County. The state senator who sponsored the adoption measure, Curtis Peterson, said at the time that its purpose was to send a message to the gay community that "we're really tired of you" and "we wish you'd go back into the closet."

Florida permits gay men and lesbians to be foster parents. The lead plaintiff in the case, Steven Lofton, is a licensed foster parent who has taken in eight children with H.I.V. or AIDS, winning an award as the outstanding foster parent of the year from the agency that placed the children in the home he has shared for 20 years with his partner, Roger Croteau. The boy identified in the case as John Doe, now 13, has been with the couple since infancy.

The Supreme Court made no comment Monday in turning down the case, Lofton v. Secretary of the Florida Department of Children and Families, No. 04-478. The justices may have decided to permit the Lawrence decision to play out in different contexts in various courts before taking up the gay rights issue once again.

Matthew A. Coles, director of the Lesbian and Gay Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the plaintiffs, said in an interview that the fact that the Florida law was unique might have limited the court's interest in the case.

Last month in Arkansas, in another suit brought by the A.C.L.U., a state trial judge struck down a law that prohibits placing foster children in a household with a gay adult. Arkansas has announced that it will appeal the ruling. Mr. Coles said the Arkansas case might be the next to reach the Supreme Court.